Appeal No. 2004-1240
Application No. 09/742,691
Attachment A on page 2 of Eric Polesuk’s Declaration
of Paper #18.
With regard to the issue of commercial success,
we find that this Declaration fails for the same
reasons discussed in Section IV. A. and B., above.
With regard to the issue of copying, more than
just copying is generally needed to establish
unobviousness. See In re GPAC Inc. 57 F.3d 1573,
1580, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121-22 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Also,
Attachment A does not indicate the circumstances in
which the other companies began selling their
dispensers. It is possible that these companies
independently designed their disepensers without
knowledge of appellant’s dispenser. Appellant does
not provide proof that in fact copying took place.
D. Scott Anders Declaration
With regard to Scott Anders Declaration,
appellant discusses this Declaration, beginning on
page 7 of the brief, as follows.
Scott Anders is the president of a leading US
company, which specializes in the manufacturing
and production of aluminum products, including,
institutional/industrial roll foil and a
multitude of food service containers comprised of
aluminum such as oven roasters, loaf pans, baking
pans, pie pans, and take out containers. Anders
Declaration, paragraph 1. One of the product
lines sold by Scot Anders’ company is
institutional/ household roll aluminum foil,
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007